CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

RIGHT TO BAIL

Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be
bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided
by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

 Read Rule 114, Rules of Court

 Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law,
furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any
court as may be required [Rule 114, Sec. 1]; its purpose is to insure the
attendance of the accused and it has neither punitive nor revenue raising
purpose; it may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash
deposit or recognizance [Section 1]

 The right to bail springs from the right to be presumed innocent; it is accorded
to a person in custody of the law who may by reason of the presumption of
innocence he enjoys, be allowed provisional liberty upon filing a security to
guarantee his appearance before any court, as required under specific
circumstances [People v. Fitzgerald, G.R. No. 149723, October 27, 2006]; bail
likewise enables an accused to prepare for his defense without being subject to
punishment prior to conviction

 Any person under detention, even if no formal charges have yet been filed, can
invoke the right to bail [Teehankee v. Rovira, 75 Phil 634; People v. San
Diego, 26 SCRA 522]; BUT, it is a basic principle that the right to bail can be
availed of only by a person who is in custody of the law or otherwise deprived
of his liberty, and it would be premature, not to say incongruous, to file a
petition for bail for someone whose freedom has yet to be curtailed [Cortes v.
Judge Catral, AM RTJ-97-1387, September 10, 1997]; the person claiming the
right must be in actual detention or custody of the law and the constitutional
right is available only in criminal cases
 EXCEPTIONS:

 When charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or higher

and evidence of guilt is strong; where the accused is charged with an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua, it is the duty of the judge to determine if
evidence of guilt is strong for purposes of deciding whether bail may be
granted or not [Carpió v. Judge Maglalang, 196 SCRA 41]; whether the
motion for bail is resolved in summary proceedings or in the course of
regular trial, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present all the
evidence that it may wish to introduce on the probable guilt of the accused
before the court resolves the motion for bail; even if the prosecution refuses
to adduce evidence, or fails to interpose an objection to the motion for bail,
it is still mandatory for the court to conduct a hearing, or ask searching and
clarificatory questions from which it may infer the strength of the evidence
of guilt, or lack of it, against the accused [Baylon v. Judge Sisón, 243 SCRA
284; Marallag v. Judge Cloribel. A.M, No. 00-1529-RTJ, April 09, 2002];
see also Tucay v. Judge Domagas, 242 SCRA 110, Delos Santos-Reyes v.
Judge Montesa, 247 SCRA 85 and Buzon v. Judge Velasco, 253 SCRA 601

 Traditionally, the right to bail is not available to the military [See

Comendador v. de Villa, 200 SCRA 80; the denial of the right to bail to the
military does not violate the equal protection clause because there is
substantial distinction between the military and civilians [Arula v. Espino,
28 SCRA 540]

 Bail is either a matter of right, or at the judge’s discretion, or it may be denied

[Rule 114]

(1) Bail, a matter of RIGHT. All persons in custody shall [i] before or after
conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal
Trial Court in Cities and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and [ii] before
conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, be admitted to bail as a matter of right,
with sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as prescribed by law or
this Rule [Sec. 4, Rule 114].

(2) Bail, when DISCRETIONARY. Upon conviction by the Regional Trial

Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, the court, on application, may admit the accused to bail. The
court, in its discretion, may allow the accused to continue on provisional liberty
under the same bail bond during the period to appeal subject to the consent of
the bondsman. If the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six
years but not more than twenty years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his
bail previously granted shall be cancelled, upon a showing by the prosecution,
with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstances: [i]
that the accused is a recidivist, quasirecidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has
committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration; [ii] that the
accused is found to have previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded
sentence or has violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification;
[iii] that the accused committed the offense while on probation, parole, or under
conditional pardon; [iv] that the circumstances of the accused or his case
indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or [v] that there is undue
risk that during the pendency of the appeal, the accused may commit another
crime [Sec. 5, Rule 114].

Whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, reasonable notice of

hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor, or at least he must be
asked for his recommendation, because in fixing the amount of bail, the
judge is required to take into account a number of factors such as the
applicant’s character and reputation, forfeiture of other bonds, etc. [Cortes
v. Judge Catral, AM. No. RTJ-97-1387, September 10, 1997]

In case an APPLICATION FOR BAIL is filed by an accused charged with

a capital offense, the judge is duty-bound to: (1) Notify the prosecutor of
the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his
recommendation [Section 18, Rule 114]; (2) Conduct a hearing of the
application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to
present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the
purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion. [Section 7
and 8, Rule 114]; (3) Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is
strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution; (4) If the guilt
of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the
bailbond. (Section 19, Rule 114) otherwise, the petition should be denied

STRONG EVIDENCE of guilt for purposes of bail means “proof evident”

or “presumption great”, or clear, strong evidence which leads a well-
guarded dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that the offense has been
committed as charged, the accused is the guilty agent, and that he will
probably be punished capitally if the law is administered; it exists when the
 circumstances testified to are such that the inference of guilt naturally to be
drawn therefrom is strong, clear, and convincing to an unbiased judgment
and excludes all reasonable probability of any other conclusion; In other
words, the test is not whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond
reasonable doubt but rather whether it shows evident guilt or great
presumption of guilt

(3) When bail shall be DENIED. When the accused is charged with a capital
offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or higher and evidence
of guilt is strong, then bail shall be denied, as it is neither a matter of right or of
discretion [Padilla v. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA 155]

Where the accused is charged with a crime punishable by reclusion

perpetua and is convicted by the trial court and sentenced to suffer such a
penalty, bail is neither a matter of right nor a matter of discretion; an
application for bail must be denied [People v. Fortes, 223 SCRA 619].

 In Sec. 6, Rule 114, Rules of Court, among the factors to be considered by the
judge in fixing bail are the financial ability of the accused, the nature and
circumstances of the offense, the penalty for the offense charged, the character
and reputation of the accused, his age and health, the weight of the evidence
against him, the probability of his appearing at the trial, the forfeiture of other
bonds by him, the fact that he was a fugitive from justice when arrested, and
the pendency of other cases in which he is under bond

 On the right to bail and right to travel abroad, see Manotoc v. Court of
Appeals, 142 SCRA 149; Silverio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94284, April
8, 1991; and, Defensor-Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633,

 On the right to bail and extradition, see Government of the U.S. v. Judge
Puruganan and Mark Jimenez, G.R. No. 148571, December 17, 2002 declaring
that the constitutional provision on bail applies only when a person has been
arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws and it does not
apply to extradition proceedings which are separate and distinct from the trial
for the offenses for which one is charged; bail may be applied for and granted
as an exception, only upon a clear and convincing showing that (a) once
granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the
community, and (b) there exist special, humanitarian and compelling
circumstances including, as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by the highest
court in the requesting state when it grants provisional liberty in extradition
 cases therein; this ruling in Puruganan was modified in Government of Hong
Kong v. Hon. Felixberto T. Olalia, Jr., G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007, where
the Court decreed that if bail can be granted in deportation cases, considering
that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to deportation cases,
there is no reason why it cannot be invoked in extradition cases.

 The right to bail can be WAIVED; it is a right which is personal to the accused
and whose waiver would not be contrary to law, public order, public policy,
morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right
recognized by law [People v. Judge Donato, 198 SCRA 130]; the failure of the
accused to call the attention of the trial court to the unresolved petition for bail
is deemed a waiver of the right to bail [People v. Manes, G.R. No. 122737,
February 17, 1999]

 The right to bail is not impaired by the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus

 Fixing EXCESSIVE BAIL amounts to a denial of bail; the bail is not intended
to assume the civil liability of the accused [Yap v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
141529, June 6, 2001]

 CASES:
Comendador v. De Villa, 200 SCRA 80
Enrile v. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217
Al-Ghoul v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126859, September 01, 2001
Lavides v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129670, February 1, 2000
Fortes v. Judge Guam 223 SCRA 619
People v. Fortes, 223 SCRA 619
Government of the U.S. v. Judge Puruganan and Mark Jimenez, G.R. No.
148571, December 17, 2002
Yap v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141529, June 6, 2001
Cortes v. Judge Catral, AM RTJ-97-1387, September 10, 1997
Baylon v. Judge Sisón, 243 SCRA 284